CARL J. BARBIER, United States District Judge.
Before the Court is the Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendant, Entergy Operations. Plaintiff opposes the motion. The motion, set for hearing on June 21, 2000, is before the court on briefs without oral argument.
In its motion, Entergy argues that it is entitled to summary judgment premised on a finding that no constructive discharge of plaintiff took place, and thus that plaintiff has failed to state a prima facie case. However, the issue of constructive discharge was previously considered by the court, and the court found that factual issues were present which precluded summary judgment. Order Reasons of 9/24/98, Rec. Doc. 159. Accordingly, while styled as a motion for summary judgment, this court finds that the motion is more properly considered a motion for reconsideration.
The court finds the instant motion most closely analogous to a Rule 60(b)(6) motion, and as such, it must have been filed within a "reasonable time." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). The motion is based on the Fifth Circuit's decision in Brown v. Bunge Corp., 207 F.3d 776 (5th Cir. Mar. 28, 2000), but was not filed until May 23, 2000, almost two months after the Brown decision was rendered. While it is questionable whether two months is within a reasonable time, the court gives movants the benefit of the doubt on this question and considers the motion timely.
While reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(6) is occasionally granted following a change in decisional law, no decisional law that would affect the issue presented in this motion has been changed. In its prior order denying motion for summary judgment on constructive discharge, the court specifically invoked Barrow v. New Orleans S.S. Ass'n, 10 F.3d 292 (5th Cir. 1994). The Fifth Circuit's recent opinion in Brown v. Bunge Corporation did not change the law or undermine the holding inBarrow; it merely applied the factors set forth in Barrow to the facts of the Brown case. 207 F.3d at 782. The facts in the case sub judice are not the same as those in Brown, and thus that decision does not provide a basis for reconsidering the court's prior order. Accordingly;
WRIGHT, MILLER KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: CIVIL 2D § 2864 at 374 (West 1995).
207 F.3d 776 (5th Cir. 2000).
IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 269) should be and is hereby DENIED.
* * * * * * * * *